Legal Opinion

Glass v. Goeckel

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 13, 2004No. Docket No. 242641PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMurray, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a neighbor of defendants, asserts that as a member of the general public she “has the right to navigate and walk across those portions of the shore and waters of Lake Huron lying below and lakeward of the natural ordinary high-water mark, free from obstruction or interference by defendants.” Defendants argue that their property rights extend to the waters’ edge, and that plaintiff could not walk beyond the waters’ edge and onto their property. The trial court held that plaintiff was entitled to freely traverse the *31“shore of Lake Huron lying below and lakewards of the…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Hardin v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  5. Smith v. Globe Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1999

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Glass v. GoeckelMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Glass v. GoeckelMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Glass v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005
  4. Glass v. GoeckelMichigan Supreme Court · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API